-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Opinions on security deposit from some landlords here
- Thread starter Mrs. D
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
Let me be perfectly clear. I did not put down one month rent @ $900 plus $900 security to move in. I put down $2000 security (which equals one month's rent of $1100 plus $900 extra) plus first month's rent to move in, for a total of $3100.
The reason the apartment is below market value is because my landlord owns the house outright, and doesn't feel it's fair to charge more. We have talked about this, she knows similar rentals in the neighborhood go for about $1500 a month, and that she could get that. She chooses not to charge that. All of the rentals in the building are below market because she doesn't believe the rents charged in this area are fair or reasonable. By "below market" I don't mean Section 8 or public housing, I mean what other people are choosing to charge versus what my landlord chooses to charge.
The law states that LL may only charge one month's rent as security (in my case, that would be $1100). I am not asking for a refund of my entire security deposit, just the amount above my monthly rent, as her holding more than that violates the law.
The increased security deposit (of $2000 instead of $1100) was requested because she wanted to make sure the future tenant (which ended up being me) would not behave has the previous tenant did, and leave her in the hole. I have excellent credit and references from previous landlords. At the time we signed the lease, she noted the fact that the extra deposit seemed unnecessary considering my circumstances, but she was sticking to her guns.
The sub-let between me and DH is a month-to-month deal. I understand that there is the remote possibility that I would move out and he would stay, screwing the landlord. This would be quite difficult, as I am his landlord and his sub-let is unenforceable if my lease is no longer valid. Still, if that were to happen, I am legally liable for the full rent of the premises, and she could legally hold me responsible. If I were to choose to try and screw her over should this remote possibility come to pass, not only would I lose in court, I would lose my job, as I am a security cleared professional and active, unpaid civil judgments will
end your career in this circumstance. There is strong evidence to suggest that I am a low risk tenant. I understand bearing the burden of other's mistakes. That is what I am doing with this deposit. But the fact remains that it is illegal.
What I am asking is how the landlords who post here would feel about this request from a tenant. Of course none of you know my LL, but you can tell a lot about how someone might react by how others react when presented with the same situation, combined with your personal knowledge of the person. If other landlords here would be upset, I would assume my landlord would be upset.
The reason the apartment is below market value is because my landlord owns the house outright, and doesn't feel it's fair to charge more. We have talked about this, she knows similar rentals in the neighborhood go for about $1500 a month, and that she could get that. She chooses not to charge that. All of the rentals in the building are below market because she doesn't believe the rents charged in this area are fair or reasonable. By "below market" I don't mean Section 8 or public housing, I mean what other people are choosing to charge versus what my landlord chooses to charge.
The law states that LL may only charge one month's rent as security (in my case, that would be $1100). I am not asking for a refund of my entire security deposit, just the amount above my monthly rent, as her holding more than that violates the law.
The increased security deposit (of $2000 instead of $1100) was requested because she wanted to make sure the future tenant (which ended up being me) would not behave has the previous tenant did, and leave her in the hole. I have excellent credit and references from previous landlords. At the time we signed the lease, she noted the fact that the extra deposit seemed unnecessary considering my circumstances, but she was sticking to her guns.
The sub-let between me and DH is a month-to-month deal. I understand that there is the remote possibility that I would move out and he would stay, screwing the landlord. This would be quite difficult, as I am his landlord and his sub-let is unenforceable if my lease is no longer valid. Still, if that were to happen, I am legally liable for the full rent of the premises, and she could legally hold me responsible. If I were to choose to try and screw her over should this remote possibility come to pass, not only would I lose in court, I would lose my job, as I am a security cleared professional and active, unpaid civil judgments will
end your career in this circumstance. There is strong evidence to suggest that I am a low risk tenant. I understand bearing the burden of other's mistakes. That is what I am doing with this deposit. But the fact remains that it is illegal.
What I am asking is how the landlords who post here would feel about this request from a tenant. Of course none of you know my LL, but you can tell a lot about how someone might react by how others react when presented with the same situation, combined with your personal knowledge of the person. If other landlords here would be upset, I would assume my landlord would be upset.
The District of Columbia (Washington, DC) has a maximum security deposit of two months rent, as allowed by law for unfurnished rentals. (The maximum is three months for furnished rentals.) Therefore, tenant’s theory is based in misinformation regarding the housing laws for The District.
In addition, the other unsubstantiated statements may also be disregarded as presumptuous, including:
The LL realized the high risk involved with the tenancy and induced the maximum security deposit allowed by law. A request for security deposit refund (disguised as rebate) will raised the "red flag," indicating that tenant plans to move-out without proper written notice or in violation of lease agreement. Leave well enough alone and enjoy the "below market rent" and avoid eviction. NICE TRY! No cigar. Proceed directly to jail. Do not pass "GO."
In addition, the other unsubstantiated statements may also be disregarded as presumptuous, including:
- The reason the apartment is below market value is because my landlord owns the house outright, and doesn't feel it's fair to charge more.
- The law states that LL may only charge one month's rent as security (in my case, that would be $1100).
- The increased security deposit was requested because she wanted to make sure the future tenant … would not … leave her in the hole.
- The sub-let between me and DH is a month-to-month deal. … I am his landlord and his sub-let is unenforceable if my lease is no longer valid.
The LL realized the high risk involved with the tenancy and induced the maximum security deposit allowed by law. A request for security deposit refund (disguised as rebate) will raised the "red flag," indicating that tenant plans to move-out without proper written notice or in violation of lease agreement. Leave well enough alone and enjoy the "below market rent" and avoid eviction. NICE TRY! No cigar. Proceed directly to jail. Do not pass "GO."
Alaska landlord
Senior Member
This is one of those I'll show you mine if you show me yours.
Mir, please show your source so that we can all lay this to rest.
To answer OP question;
It would not irk me one bit if I am corrected by a tenant and can avoid legal problems down the road. Of course I would need confirmation.
Alaska is correct. I looked up the original version of the DC rental law online, as Alaska did, and the maximum deposit is one month's rent. The agreement between me and DH is between us, not between me & landlord or him & LL. He pays me half the rent and half the utilities for living here. If he moves out, I'm responsible for all. That's fine. I can afford the rent and utils without a thought (I paid them by myself for 4 months before he moved in, and all it meant was less eating out). That's the whole reason we married and moved in together, because we now had a place we could afford together (typically 2-beds in this area rent for approx. $2000, and that seemed excessive) and if one of us moved out the other could afford it alone easily, and we could still save up to buy a place like this. I have permission from LL for this arrangement (one minor change is that me & DH pay 2/5 of water bill instead of 1/5, as there are 2 of us in this apartment instead of one, and the water bill is combined. Not a big deal, I could pay 2/5 (approx. $17) or 1/5 (approx. $15) without an issue). The info I was going on before was incorrect info provided by a friend, but the real, actual law is 1 month's rent.
Thank you, Alaska. I will inform my landlord of the issue, and ask for a refund. I really hope she doesn't decide she doesn't want me anymore after Oct. 1, 2009 (when we re-uped, she offered me a new 1-year lease), as the $900 extra sec. deposit would pale in comparison to the extra rent in a comparable place. But it is my right, right?
Thank you, Alaska. I will inform my landlord of the issue, and ask for a refund. I really hope she doesn't decide she doesn't want me anymore after Oct. 1, 2009 (when we re-uped, she offered me a new 1-year lease), as the $900 extra sec. deposit would pale in comparison to the extra rent in a comparable place. But it is my right, right?
Alaska landlord
Senior Member
It is possible your landlord may have spent the money and you may have to work out a reduction in rent. This often happens with LL's that are not familiar with state laws and tenant rights.
Damn...
She has been a landlord since about when I was born (I mentioned my age in another post, but suffice it to say late 70's/early 80's). I mean, DC law is pretty clear. Here's the reg:
308 SECURITY DEPOSITS
308.1 For purposes of this chapter, the term "security deposit" shall mean all monies paid to the owner by the tenant as a deposit or other payment made as security for performance of the tenant's obligations in a lease or rental of the property.
308.2 On or after February 20, 1976, any security deposit or other payment required by an owner as security for performance of the tenant's obligations in a lease or rental of a dwelling unit shall not exceed an amount equivalent to the first full month's rent charged that tenant for the dwelling unit, and shall be charged only once by the owner to the tenant.
308.3 All monies paid to an owner by tenants for security deposits or other payment made as security for performance of the tenant's obligations shall be deposited by the owner in an interest bearing escrow account established and held in trust in a financial institution in the District for the sole purposes of holding such deposits or payments.
308.4 All monies held by an owner on February 20, 1976 for security deposits or other payments covered by this section shall be paid into an escrow account within thirty (30) days.
308.5 The owner of more than one residential building may establish one (1) escrow account for holding security deposits or other payments by the tenants of those buildings.
308.6 For each security deposit or other payment covered by this section, the owner shall clearly state in the lease or agreement or on the receipt for the deposit or other payment the terms and conditions under which the payment was made.
308.7 The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to Federal or District of Columbia agencies' dwelling units leased in the District of Columbia or to units for which rents are Federally subsidized.
SOURCE: The Housing Regulations of the District of Columbia, 50 DCRR §2908, C.O. 55-1503 (August 11,1955), as amended by §3 of the Security Deposit Act, D.C. Law 1-48, 22 DCR 2823 (November 28, 1975).
She has to escrow it. I was going to ask for the $900 plus interest. Not only would the amount earn more interest in our high-yield account, but then we could have our screen door so that we could have a nice cross-breeze in our apt. in the fall. I guess the screen is only approx. $125, we could still have it for next spring.
She has been a landlord since about when I was born (I mentioned my age in another post, but suffice it to say late 70's/early 80's). I mean, DC law is pretty clear. Here's the reg:
308 SECURITY DEPOSITS
308.1 For purposes of this chapter, the term "security deposit" shall mean all monies paid to the owner by the tenant as a deposit or other payment made as security for performance of the tenant's obligations in a lease or rental of the property.
308.2 On or after February 20, 1976, any security deposit or other payment required by an owner as security for performance of the tenant's obligations in a lease or rental of a dwelling unit shall not exceed an amount equivalent to the first full month's rent charged that tenant for the dwelling unit, and shall be charged only once by the owner to the tenant.
308.3 All monies paid to an owner by tenants for security deposits or other payment made as security for performance of the tenant's obligations shall be deposited by the owner in an interest bearing escrow account established and held in trust in a financial institution in the District for the sole purposes of holding such deposits or payments.
308.4 All monies held by an owner on February 20, 1976 for security deposits or other payments covered by this section shall be paid into an escrow account within thirty (30) days.
308.5 The owner of more than one residential building may establish one (1) escrow account for holding security deposits or other payments by the tenants of those buildings.
308.6 For each security deposit or other payment covered by this section, the owner shall clearly state in the lease or agreement or on the receipt for the deposit or other payment the terms and conditions under which the payment was made.
308.7 The provisions of this section shall not be applicable to Federal or District of Columbia agencies' dwelling units leased in the District of Columbia or to units for which rents are Federally subsidized.
SOURCE: The Housing Regulations of the District of Columbia, 50 DCRR §2908, C.O. 55-1503 (August 11,1955), as amended by §3 of the Security Deposit Act, D.C. Law 1-48, 22 DCR 2823 (November 28, 1975).
She has to escrow it. I was going to ask for the $900 plus interest. Not only would the amount earn more interest in our high-yield account, but then we could have our screen door so that we could have a nice cross-breeze in our apt. in the fall. I guess the screen is only approx. $125, we could still have it for next spring.
Not based on misinformation. Please see the above direct quote from the DC rental law, 14 DCMR 308.2.
It really doesn't matter what the reason is for the rent being below what others charge. That is what she charges and per DC law she can only raise the rent 5.3% unless she applies for an exception for the rent control laws in the District. She could do this, and probably be successful, hence my concern over her raising my rent.
Answered that above
It doesn't matter what her reason was for requiring more of a deposit, the deposit I paid was more than the maximum allowable by DC law. See citation above.
The maximum security deposit allowed by law is one month's rent, or $1100. She owes me the other $900 plus interest that I paid in September of 2007 for my lease that began October 1, 2007. My question was would this irk the average landlord to the point that they would try to force me out. I don't want to take her to court to get this, as it would be favorable for me to live here until I buy in a few years. Your post is poorly informed, irrelevant to my question, and generally a waste of everyone's time.
The tenant’s motivations behind the lease agreement and apartment rental may appear deceptive to the LL and will by cause for scrutiny and potential for eviction. Although most cards are already stacked in favor of tenant with below market rent, unnecessary involvement in LL’s business and affairs, authorized roommates without obligation, etc., the probability of eviction are high. Based upon current information from a reliable trade association, Washington D.C., Virginia and Maryland allow a maximum two (2) months security deposit. The terms for security deposit collection within The District of Columbia are dependent upon particular housing regulations because Washington, D.C. is not an actual legal state, like Virginia and Maryland, and the housing regulations are more complex.
It is common practice for LLs to collect first and last month’s rent plus security deposit to compensate for irregularities in the law.
Tenants with these obscure issues are probably intending and planning an unauthorized early lease termination. (Definitely not for use to “upgrade” the LL’s premises.) It would seem that tenant would have been educated and aware of the security deposit laws at the time of move-in and would have exercised their tenant rights at that point. The tenant’s posted information reveals that there are additional motivations that raise the request for security deposit rebate. Tenant did not question the security deposit because the security deposit was conditioned upon the below market monthly rental amount. The below market rent negotiated is one of those obscure housing regulations within The District (which is not a state) that has particular “security deposit” amounts allowed for collection, but also allows for other type deposits such as last month’s rent.
To get to the point… the “security deposit” collected is a combination of standard one month security ($1100), plus the last month’s rent ($900) collected in advance at the time of move-in. Hence, the reason this is not an extra expense or unlawful collection of funds.
It is common practice for LLs to collect first and last month’s rent plus security deposit to compensate for irregularities in the law.
Tenants with these obscure issues are probably intending and planning an unauthorized early lease termination. (Definitely not for use to “upgrade” the LL’s premises.) It would seem that tenant would have been educated and aware of the security deposit laws at the time of move-in and would have exercised their tenant rights at that point. The tenant’s posted information reveals that there are additional motivations that raise the request for security deposit rebate. Tenant did not question the security deposit because the security deposit was conditioned upon the below market monthly rental amount. The below market rent negotiated is one of those obscure housing regulations within The District (which is not a state) that has particular “security deposit” amounts allowed for collection, but also allows for other type deposits such as last month’s rent.
To get to the point… the “security deposit” collected is a combination of standard one month security ($1100), plus the last month’s rent ($900) collected in advance at the time of move-in. Hence, the reason this is not an extra expense or unlawful collection of funds.
It's called a security deposit in the lease and on the payment receipt I received from my landlord. The lease clearly states that no part of that $2000 would be used toward the last month's rent. Therefore, according to the law of the District of Columbia, 14 DCMR - which all residents of the District are required to follow, and which no law of another state can override as DC is independent from all of the 50 states - the amount of the deposit exceeds the maximum allowable limits. I did not question it at the time because I was relying on incorrect information from a source that I thought could be trusted. If what you are saying about DC laws being complicated because sometimes other laws apply then I'm paying Ohio taxes from now on (approx. 3.5%) or Florida (no state income tax) instead of DC (8.5%). You think that would fly? No, then why would applying another state's rental law fly?
I did not negotiate a below market rent. She advertised the apartment on Craigslist at the rent I pay. If she wants to charge less than other landlords, that's fine, there's no law against that. Rental ceilings for individual apartments (over 60% of rentals in DC are rent-controlled) are based on the rent charged for that apartment and *sometimes* the rent of other units in the same building, but never on the rent of other apartments in the general area. Yes, a landlord can apply to increase the rent above the apartment's ceiling and yes, those requests are often approved. However, this has no bearing on what security deposit may be collected. If she raises the rent, she has a right to ask me to increase my security deposit to the new rental amount. But she cannot collect more at lease inception in anticipation of future rental rate increases. (to provide some insight into her planned rental rate increases, she could have raised my rent to approx. $1160 for the new lease, she left it unchanged at $1100)
I would really like to know what she is going to "evict" me for. Could she choose not to renew my lease again, effectively terminating my tenancy in the apartment on September 30, 2009? Yes. But she would need cause to evict me before that. I have never paid my rent late. My "roommate" is authorized by LL in writing as an addendum to my original lease, which is in effect today, and in writing as a part of the main body of my new lease, which takes effect October 1, 2008. I have all the utilities in my name as required, and none are past-due. The premises are in a clean, safe, and habitable condition. I have made no un-authorized repairs or upgrades to my apartment or the building in general.
As for meddling in my LL's affairs... The price of rentals in the area came up one day when she came by and we were just chatting. She was getting ready to rent another unit in the building and remarked that she couldn't believe what other people were charging. I did not pry or even ask, she volunteered that information as part of a friendly conversation. I take care of the outside of the building because I couldn't stand looking at the weeds/yard debris/trash out there anymore. Being at ground level, it was the most unpleasant for me. So DH and I hauled all the branches and leaves and rusty old bikes of former tenants out of the back and pulled weeds and planted flowers in the front. Now everyone has nice areas to congregate and socialize. I don't see how that is a bad thing, and it was just something we did to make our living place more tolerable. The conflicts I mediate between other tenants are petty annoyances they don't know how to handle because they are all quite young, mostly right out of school. They don't realize if they politely ask someone to turn their TV down they will usually do it. It's not like I'm moderating a Jerry Springer Show, I just sometimes help a tenant talk to another tenant about a problem.
Any other upgrades (all authorized) we have made or are planning to make are for our own benefit. No one spends $125 putting a fancy screen door on their front entry and then moves out a month later. If I were a LL, someone wanting to make upgrades like that would tell me they were planning on staying a while, not cutting and running. True, that's all of the $900 we would spend on the apartment. The rest would go into our high-yield savings and earn more money than it currently is in passbook savings. As pleasant as it is to deal with all the wonderful LLs out there (I don't know if Mirakles is one, I hope not), and all the great neighbors I have had in rentals (I won't even start) we would like to own our own home at some point in the near future. That requires using every penny in the smartest way possible, and earning as much as possible on it.
Perhaps Mirakles should not try to answer questions unless he actually knows the answer. In this case I asked for an opinion (and at one point mentioned that anyone who would just bash me should stay out of the conversation), and I got a lesson in law from someone who has clearly never read a law.
I did not negotiate a below market rent. She advertised the apartment on Craigslist at the rent I pay. If she wants to charge less than other landlords, that's fine, there's no law against that. Rental ceilings for individual apartments (over 60% of rentals in DC are rent-controlled) are based on the rent charged for that apartment and *sometimes* the rent of other units in the same building, but never on the rent of other apartments in the general area. Yes, a landlord can apply to increase the rent above the apartment's ceiling and yes, those requests are often approved. However, this has no bearing on what security deposit may be collected. If she raises the rent, she has a right to ask me to increase my security deposit to the new rental amount. But she cannot collect more at lease inception in anticipation of future rental rate increases. (to provide some insight into her planned rental rate increases, she could have raised my rent to approx. $1160 for the new lease, she left it unchanged at $1100)
I would really like to know what she is going to "evict" me for. Could she choose not to renew my lease again, effectively terminating my tenancy in the apartment on September 30, 2009? Yes. But she would need cause to evict me before that. I have never paid my rent late. My "roommate" is authorized by LL in writing as an addendum to my original lease, which is in effect today, and in writing as a part of the main body of my new lease, which takes effect October 1, 2008. I have all the utilities in my name as required, and none are past-due. The premises are in a clean, safe, and habitable condition. I have made no un-authorized repairs or upgrades to my apartment or the building in general.
As for meddling in my LL's affairs... The price of rentals in the area came up one day when she came by and we were just chatting. She was getting ready to rent another unit in the building and remarked that she couldn't believe what other people were charging. I did not pry or even ask, she volunteered that information as part of a friendly conversation. I take care of the outside of the building because I couldn't stand looking at the weeds/yard debris/trash out there anymore. Being at ground level, it was the most unpleasant for me. So DH and I hauled all the branches and leaves and rusty old bikes of former tenants out of the back and pulled weeds and planted flowers in the front. Now everyone has nice areas to congregate and socialize. I don't see how that is a bad thing, and it was just something we did to make our living place more tolerable. The conflicts I mediate between other tenants are petty annoyances they don't know how to handle because they are all quite young, mostly right out of school. They don't realize if they politely ask someone to turn their TV down they will usually do it. It's not like I'm moderating a Jerry Springer Show, I just sometimes help a tenant talk to another tenant about a problem.
Any other upgrades (all authorized) we have made or are planning to make are for our own benefit. No one spends $125 putting a fancy screen door on their front entry and then moves out a month later. If I were a LL, someone wanting to make upgrades like that would tell me they were planning on staying a while, not cutting and running. True, that's all of the $900 we would spend on the apartment. The rest would go into our high-yield savings and earn more money than it currently is in passbook savings. As pleasant as it is to deal with all the wonderful LLs out there (I don't know if Mirakles is one, I hope not), and all the great neighbors I have had in rentals (I won't even start) we would like to own our own home at some point in the near future. That requires using every penny in the smartest way possible, and earning as much as possible on it.
Perhaps Mirakles should not try to answer questions unless he actually knows the answer. In this case I asked for an opinion (and at one point mentioned that anyone who would just bash me should stay out of the conversation), and I got a lesson in law from someone who has clearly never read a law.
Last edited:
He must be a lawyer then. I should know, I work with them all day.
Tenants often condone their own subjective behaviors and opinions as being right. Nevertheless, when same tenant is without a place to live the property owner is always in the wrong. Be smart and take the advice of those who can evict you rather than those who have been evicted.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the LL collected a security deposit plus last month’s rent, as agreed to by tenant (with signed lease agreement).
Nevertheless, it is clear that the LL collected a security deposit plus last month’s rent, as agreed to by tenant (with signed lease agreement).
Ok MIRAKALES. Please explain to me how you figure she collected security and last month's rent. Here are all the facts, no opinions:
1. My lease states that a security deposit of $2000 was collected, for the purposes of remedying damage to the apartment, and none of this is to be used as last month's rent. Here is the exact language from my lease:
2. I have a receipt for payment of the $2000 deposit that simply states "Received: $2000, Purpose: security deposit."
So please explain to me how these facts add up to her collecting security and last month's rent and not just security.
1. My lease states that a security deposit of $2000 was collected, for the purposes of remedying damage to the apartment, and none of this is to be used as last month's rent. Here is the exact language from my lease:
The ellipses represent a clause about normal wear and tear and nothing more.
2. I have a receipt for payment of the $2000 deposit that simply states "Received: $2000, Purpose: security deposit."
So please explain to me how these facts add up to her collecting security and last month's rent and not just security.
Last edited:
Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!
Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">